rtc_validar_xml_dfe

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are present, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that this is a rule-based validation to auditar IBS/CBS preenchimento, which implies a non-mutating audit. It does not state whether invalid XML produces errors, what the return format is, or whether there are side effects, leaving clear gaps.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and followed by a concrete use case. Every sentence earns its place; there is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves important gaps: it does not define the return value or error behavior, and it leaves 'tipo_dfe' undocumented. It gives a solid high-level purpose but is not complete enough for an agent to reliably call it correctly without additional assumptions.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It tells the agent that XML refers to an electronic fiscal document, which helps understand the 'xml' parameter conceptually. But it does not explain the expected format of the xml string or the meaning and accepted values of the optional 'tipo_dfe' parameter.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('Valida') and a specific resource ('XML de um documento fiscal eletrônico'), and scopes the action to 'regras da calculadora'. It clearly conveys the core purpose, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling validation tools like rtc_validar_ncm or rtc_validar_nbs.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The second sentence gives an explicit intended use: auditar preenchimento de IBS/CBS antes que o erro vire base da apuração assistida. This provides clear context for when to invoke the tool. However, it does not mention exclusions or alternative tools, so the when-not guidance is absent.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.